Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Background

Medidata moved to exclude evidence and argument concerning a parallel California lawsuit involving the parties. Veeva opposed the motion.

In July 2017, Veeva sued Medidata and two other defendants in California state court. Veeva sought a declaration that Medidata’s agreements with several employees accused of trade-secret misappropriation were unlawful because they contained noncompetition provisions that violated California law. The California complaint also briefly referred to broad confidentiality obligations in those agreements. The California lawsuit was ongoing.

Court’s reasoning

Medidata had originally asserted claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment. The court’s earlier summary-judgment decision held that those claims were preempted under California law, leaving only the trade-secret-misappropriation claims. The parties agreed that the California lawsuit was not relevant to those remaining claims. The court also found a substantial risk that introducing evidence about the California litigation would confuse the jury.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Medidata’s motion in limine, identified as Medidata MIL 11. The parties may not introduce evidence or argument regarding the California litigation at trial. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 486.